Different Absorption from the Same Sharing: Sifted Multi-task Learning for Fake News Detection

Ambreen Nazir; Haolin Jin; Lianwei Wu; Ling Sun; Yuan Rao

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Different Absorption from the Same Sharing: Sifted Multi-task Learning for Fake News Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Sifting shared features with a gate-plus-attention layer lifts fake-news detection F1 by 0.87 percentage points on RumourEval and 1.31 on PHEME.

desk verdict Plausible multi-task feature-selection idea, but the paper is an unfinished draft with numerical inconsistencies that invalidate the SOTA claim as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01720 v1 pith:ZTGCIFDF submitted 2019-09-04 cs.CL cs.SI

Lianwei Wu , Yuan Rao , Haolin Jin , Ambreen Nazir , Ling Sun This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.SI

keywords fakenewsdetectionmulti-tasklearningstanceshared-privatemodelselectedsharinglayergatemechanismattentiontransformerencoder

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that in multi-task models for fake news detection, sending every shared feature to every task hurts performance: some shared features are useless or misleading for a particular task. To fix this, it inserts a selected sharing layer between the shared representation and each task, made of a gate that filters features and an attention mechanism that highlights features relevant to that task. The layer is trained jointly with stance detection and veracity detection using transformer encoders. On RumourEval and PHEME the resulting model posts the best results among the compared methods, raising F1 by more than 0.87 and 1.31 percentage points over the previous best. The point is that the same shared pool of features can serve each task better when absorption, not just sharing, is task-specific.

What carries the argument

The selected sharing layer, placed after the shared layer and before each task's output. It combines a gated sharing cell, $G = \sigma(W H_{\text{shared}} + b) \odot H_{\text{shared}}$, which filters useless shared features, with an attention sharing cell, $A = \text{MultiHead}(E_{\text{task}}, K_{\text{shared}}, V_{\text{shared}})$, which focuses on shared features relevant to the specific task. The two are integrated as $[G; |G-A|; G\odot A; A]$ and concatenated with the task's private features before a softmax output. Transformer encoders carry out the shared and private feature extraction.

What would settle it

Re-run the exact filtered datasets under the paper's 10%-holdout plus 5-fold protocol, verifying that every veracity label is a thread-level label and that PHEME's class counts sum to the number of labeled threads; then recompute F1 for the baselines and the proposed model. If the baseline F1 numbers change or the proposed model no longer beats the previous best by roughly 0.87 and 1.31 percentage points, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that 'different absorption from the same sharing' is learnable: a selected sharing layer can make two related tasks read different, task-appropriate subsets of one shared feature representation. Previously, shared-private models passed the entire shared output to both tasks, mixing useless and even adversarial features into each task's prediction. The paper shows, through ablations, that the combined gate and attention cells outperform either component alone, and through case studies that the gate keeps key tokens while the attention weights differ by task, so the same shared representation is absorbed differently by fake news detection and stance detection.

Load-bearing premise

The experimental comparison is fair: the filtered class counts in Table 1 are correct, the 10% holdout plus 5-fold cross-validation is applied identically to every method, and the baseline numbers were produced under the same protocol; if PHEME's 105,354 tweets do not correspond to the 2,402 veracity-labelled threads or the baselines used different splits, the state-of-the-art comparison collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the method is right, multi-task NLP systems can stop treating shared layers as a common pool and instead learn per-task selection, which should transfer to other task pairs with partially conflicting signals.
The reported results imply that for RumourEval and PHEME, stance detection and veracity detection share enough structure that a transformer-based shared-private model with the selected sharing layer outperforms previous LSTM- and Bayesian-based veracity detectors.
The ablation results imply that filtering alone and selection alone each add value, and the two together perform best; future designs should treat them as complementary rather than interchangeable.
Because accuracy and F1 are both highest on both datasets, the claim that selective sharing is beneficial does not depend on a single evaluation metric.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural extension the paper does not run: applying the same selected sharing layer to other multi-task pairs, such as sentiment and sarcasm detection or claim verification and stance, to see whether the different-absorption benefit is a general property or specific to rumor tasks.
The paper's choice of one-hot position embeddings over sinusoidal embeddings is motivated by a small-dataset experiment; a direct comparison with learned position embeddings on these datasets would clarify whether the conclusion is about position encoding or about model capacity.
The visualizations suggest an interpretability distinction: the gate behaves like a keyword detector while the attention cell tracks task-specific evidence; that distinction could be turned into a diagnostic for whether the model is using spurious cues.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The kernel here is worth taking seriously: the selected sharing layer, a gate plus attention on top of a transformer shared-private extractor, is a sensible way to filter shared features for each task. The ablations are well designed and suggest both cells contribute. That is the real contribution, and it might transfer to other multi-task NLP problems.

But the paper as it stands is a rough draft, and the central empirical claim does not hold up. Most damning, Table 2 reports accuracy 81.48 for the full model on RumourEval while Table 3 reports 82.10 for the same model with identical precision, recall, and F1. That is not a typo you can wave away; it is a direct contradiction in the numbers that ground the SOTA claim. The dataset statistics in Table 1 are also misleading: veracity labels are thread-level (325 for RumourEval, matching threads), while stance labels are tweet-level (5,568 and 105,354, matching tweets). The text says they 'filter unverified tweets,' but the table lumps both levels together, so the exact training set and evaluation unit are unclear.

The comparison to previous work is fragile beyond that. F1 gains of 0.87 and 1.31 points come with no error bars, no significance tests, and no code. The paper does not say whether baseline numbers were reimplemented under the same 10%-holdout-plus-5-fold protocol or taken from original papers. Without that, the gains are within run-to-run variance.

The manuscript also contains Chinese editorial notes, including a reminder to cite 'Learning What to Share: Leaky Multi-Task Network' and 'Gated Multi-Task Network for Text Classification'—two closely related works that the authors know about but do not cite. That is a citation integrity problem, not just a polish issue.

My take: the architectural idea is publishable in principle, but this draft is not. The internal numerical contradiction alone blocks it. I would desk-reject and invite resubmission after a major rewrite, with corrected tables, error bars or per-fold results, a clear statement of the evaluation granularity, and proper citations. It might be worth a reading group as a cautionary example, but not as a source of results.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a sifted multi-task learning model for fake news detection, trained jointly with stance detection. The model uses transformer encoders in a shared-private architecture and adds a 'selected sharing layer' composed of a gated sharing cell and an attention sharing cell to filter and select shared features for each task. Experiments on RumourEval and PHEME report state-of-the-art accuracy and F1, with F1 gains of 0.87 and 1.31 percentage points over the best baseline, and ablations show incremental gains from the gate and attention cells. Case-study visualizations illustrate task-specific selection of shared tokens.

Significance. If the empirical claims are reproducible, the selected sharing layer is a simple and potentially useful component for multi-task veracity and stance learning, and the ablation study provides evidence for the mechanism rather than only an end-task gain. The use of public datasets is a strength, and the visualizations are a useful addition. However, the contribution is empirical and the reported margins are small: the absence of error bars, the unclear baseline protocol, and the inconsistent dataset statistics substantially weaken the state-of-the-art claim as it stands. The paper does not include code or per-fold results, so verification currently rests on the tables alone.

major comments (4)

[Section 4.1, Table 1] The dataset statistics are internally inconsistent and block the interpretation of the evaluation. For PHEME, the thread and tweet counts (6,425 and 105,354) do not match the veracity-label counts (1,067 true + 638 false + 697 unverified = 2,402) or the stance-label counts (891 + 335 + 353 + 2,855 = 4,434), while for RumourEval the veracity labels sum to the thread count (325) but the stance labels sum to the tweet count (5,568). The paper must state, per dataset, whether the fake-news task is evaluated at thread level or tweet level, how the filtered binary subset is formed, and how many instances are used for each task.
[Section 4.3.2, Table 2] The state-of-the-art claim relies on baseline numbers whose protocol is never established. The paper does not state whether the reported SVM, CNN, TE, DeClarE, MTL-LSTM, TRNN, and Bayesian-DL results were produced by reimplementation under the same 10% holdout plus 5-fold cross-validation on the same filtered true/false subset, or copied from original papers with potentially different splits, label sets, and evaluation units. Without this, the 0.87 and 1.31 F1-point margins cannot be attributed to the method rather than to protocol differences.
[Tables 2 and 3] No estimate of variance is given, and the internal accuracy inconsistency makes the reported gains unverifiable. MT-trans-G-A reports A=81.48 in Table 2 but A=82.10 in Table 3 with identical precision, recall, and F1; if the tables come from different runs, the authors should report per-fold results and error bars. With margins under 1.5 F1 points, the claimed state-of-the-art improvement cannot be distinguished from run-to-run variation without such information.
[Section 3.4, Eq. (12)] The loss for the stance task is underspecified. The formula given is binary cross-entropy, but stance detection has four classes (support, deny, query, comment); if y_i and y-hat_i are one-hot vectors, this is not the standard multinomial cross-entropy. The paper should give the exact per-task loss and explain how the task weight lambda_i is applied to each task.

minor comments (6)

[Section 3.3, Eq. (4)] The dimension of H_shared is written as R^{1 x l(dp+dw)}, while Eq. (6) treats the same quantity as R^{l x (dp+dw)}; please make the notation consistent.
[Section 3.3, Eq. (8)] Please define G and A explicitly as the vectorized outputs of the gated and attention cells before the concatenation, since the tensor shapes are otherwise ambiguous.
[Section 4.2 and Section 3.3] The transformer encoder is said to use 6 attention heads and 2 blocks, while Section 3.3 reports best performance with h=2 in the selected sharing layer; clarify to which module each h refers.
[Section 4.4.1, Table 3] The claim that MT-trans outperforms MT-lstm is only true in accuracy; in F1, MT-lstm is better on both datasets (67.10 vs. 68.15 on RumourEval and 71.73 vs. 75.29 on PHEME). Please qualify the claim.
[Section 4.5.2] The text first lists 'gunmen, hostages, Sydney, ISIS' as the tokens receiving more attention and then says 'gunmen' and 'ISIS' obtain the highest weights; please resolve the inconsistency.
[Full text] The manuscript contains untranslated Chinese planning notes and placeholder text, including in Section 4.5.2 and in duplicated figure captions in the body text; these should be removed before any resubmission.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper makes an empirical, benchmark-based claim whose components are learned from data and compared against external baselines.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical rather than derivational: a sifted multi-task learning model with a gate-and-attention selected sharing layer is trained on public datasets (RumourEval and PHEME) and compared with external baselines. The gating and attention weights are learned parameters, and the reported F1 gains are measured against published or reproduced baseline results, so no equation's output reduces by construction to a fitted input. The architecture equations (Eqs. 1-12) define a standard transformer, gate, attention, and loss; none of these define the target accuracy or F1 in terms of themselves. The self-citations (Wu et al., 2018, 2019) appear only in related-work descriptions of general deep models and are not load-bearing for the SOTA claim. The ablation study (Table 3) provides an internal comparison of model components rather than a circular re-statement of the result. There are legitimate concerns about reproducibility, baseline comparability, and internal table inconsistencies, but those are correctness risks, not circularity. Under the rule that only explicit definitional or self-citation reductions count, the paper warrants a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the empirical setup: stance and veracity tasks are complementary, the filtered RumourEval and PHEME data are processed and split correctly, and the gate/attention filter improves shared features. No exotic entities are introduced. Hand-chosen hyperparameters such as lambda=0.6, h=2, and dropout 0.7 are reported in Section 4.2.

free parameters (3)

task weight lambda for fake news detection = 0.6
Section 4.2 sets lambda=0.6 in the global loss Eq. (11); chosen by hand or grid search, it weights the two tasks in the objective.
attention heads h in selected sharing layer = 2
Section 3.3 states the best performance when h=2; this is an experimentally selected hyperparameter.
dropout of multi-head attention in transformer encoder = 0.7
Section 4.2 sets dropout of multi-head attention to 0.7; high dropout chosen via grid search, affects shared feature quality.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Stance detection is a valuable auxiliary task for fake news veracity
The whole multi-task design assumes that shared stance features improve veracity prediction; stated in Section 1 and related work.
domain assumption The filtered RumourEval/PHEME data are correctly labelled and split without leakage
The evaluation treats true/false veracity labels and support/deny stance labels as independent labels on the same threads; Table 1's inconsistent counts make this assumption questionable (Section 4.1).
domain assumption A single gate plus attention can separate useful from harmful shared features
The selected sharing layer in Section 3.3 assumes that per-task filtering of shared tokens improves task performance.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Different Absorption from the Same Sharing: Sifted Multi-task Learning for Fake News Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZTGCIFDF

@misc{pith2026190901720,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Different Absorption from the Same Sharing: Sifted Multi-task Learning for Fake News Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZTGCIFDF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01720}
}

read the original abstract

Recently, neural networks based on multi-task learning have achieved promising performance on fake news detection, which focus on learning shared features among tasks as complementary features to serve different tasks. However, in most of the existing approaches, the shared features are completely assigned to different tasks without selection, which may lead to some useless and even adverse features integrated into specific tasks. In this paper, we design a sifted multi-task learning method with a selected sharing layer for fake news detection. The selected sharing layer adopts gate mechanism and attention mechanism to filter and select shared feature flows between tasks. Experiments on two public and widely used competition datasets, i.e. RumourEval and PHEME, demonstrate that our proposed method achieves the state-of-the-art performance and boosts the F1-score by more than 0.87%, 1.31%, respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01720 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** The details of selected sharing layer. where Hshared ∈ R 1×l(dp+dw) denotes the outputs of shared layer upstream, Wfake ∈ R l(dp+dw)×l(dp+dw) and bfake ∈ R 1×l(dp+dw) are trainable parameters. σ is a non-linear activation - sigmoid, which makes final choices for retaining and discarding features in shared layer. Then the shared features after filtering via gated sharing cell gfake for the task of fake news detectio… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Typical tokens obtained by different layers of the sifted multi-task learning method. In our proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[1]

URL: " 'urlintro :=

ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRINGS urlintro eprinturl eprintpr...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...
[3]

Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow. 2017. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of economic perspectives, 31(2):211--36

work page 2017
[4]

Carlos Castillo, Marcelo Mendoza, and Barbara Poblete. 2011. Information credibility on twitter. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web, pages 675--684. ACM

work page 2011
[5]

Xilun Chen, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Hany Hassan, Wei Wang, and Claire Cardie. 2018. Zero-resource multilingual model transfer: Learning what to share. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.03552

arXiv 2018
[6]

Xilun Chen and Claire Cardie. 2018. Multinomial adversarial networks for multi-domain text classification. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1226--1240

work page 2018
[7]

Yi-Chin Chen, Zhao-Yang Liu, and Hung-Yu Kao. 2017. Ikm at semeval-2017 task 8: Convolutional neural networks for stance detection and rumor verification. In SemEval-2017, pages 465--469

work page 2017
[8]

Junyoung Chung, Caglar Gulcehre, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling. In NIPS 2014 Workshop on Deep Learning, December 2014

2014

Show all 44 references

[9]

Niall J Conroy, Victoria L Rubin, and Yimin Chen. 2015. Automatic deception detection: Methods for finding fake news. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 52(1):1--4

2015
[10]

Leon Derczynski, Kalina Bontcheva, Maria Liakata, Rob Procter, Geraldine Wong Sak Hoi, and Arkaitz Zubiaga. 2017. Semeval-2017 task 8: Rumoureval: Determining rumour veracity and support for rumours. In SemEval-2017, pages 69--76

2017
[11]

Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805

2018 arXiv
[12]

Sebastian Dungs, Ahmet Aker, Norbert Fuhr, and Kalina Bontcheva. 2018. Can rumour stance alone predict veracity? In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 3360--3370

2018
[13]

Martin Flintham, Christian Karner, Khaled Bachour, Helen Creswick, Neha Gupta, and Stuart Moran. 2018. Falling for fake news: investigating the consumption of news via social media. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, page 376. ACM

2018
[14]

Gisel Bastidas Guacho, Sara Abdali, Neil Shah, and Evangelos E Papalexakis. 2018. Semi-supervised content-based detection of misinformation via tensor embeddings. In 2018 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), pages 322--...

2018
[15]

Sepp Hochreiter and J \"u rgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural computation, 9(8):1735--1780

1997
[16]

Elena Kochkina, Maria Liakata, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2017. Turing at semeval-2017 task 8: Sequential approach to rumour stance classification with branch-lstm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.07221

2017 arXiv
[17]

Elena Kochkina, Maria Liakata, and Arkaitz Zubiaga. 2018. All-in-one: Multi-task learning for rumour verification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.03713

2018 arXiv
[18]

Sizhen Li, Shuai Zhao, Bo Cheng, and Hao Yang. 2018. An end-to-end multi-task learning model for fact checking. EMNLP 2018, page 138

2018
[19]

Boyang Liu, Pang-Ning Tan, and Jiayu Zhou. 2019. Augmented multi-task learning by optimal transport. In Proceedings of the 2019 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, pages 19--27. SIAM

2019
[20]

Pengfei Liu, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2017. Adversarial multi-task learning for text classification. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1--10

2017
[21]

Yunfei Long, Qin Lu, Rong Xiang, Minglei Li, and Chu-Ren Huang. 2017. Fake news detection through multi-perspective speaker profiles. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 252--256

2017
[22]

Michal Lukasik, PK Srijith, Duy Vu, Kalina Bontcheva, Arkaitz Zubiaga, and Trevor Cohn. 2016. Hawkes processes for continuous time sequence classification: an application to rumour stance classification in twitter. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association f...

2016
[23]

Jing Ma, Wei Gao, and Kam-Fai Wong. 2018 a . Detect rumor and stance jointly by neural multi-task learning. In Companion of the The Web Conference 2018 on The Web Conference 2018, pages 585--593. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee

2018
[24]

Jing Ma, Wei Gao, and Kam-Fai Wong. 2018 b . Rumor detection on twitter with tree-structured recursive neural networks. In ACL, pages 1980--1989

2018
[25]

Marcelo Mendoza, Barbara Poblete, and Carlos Castillo. 2010. Twitter under crisis: Can we trust what we rt? In Proceedings of the first workshop on social media analytics, pages 71--79. ACM

2010
[26]

Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 3111--3119

2013
[27]

Mitra Mohtarami, Ramy Baly, James Glass, Preslav Nakov, Llu \' s M \`a rquez, and Alessandro Moschitti. 2018. Automatic stance detection using end-to-end memory networks. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational L...

2018
[28]

Lili Mou, Rui Men, Ge Li, Yan Xu, Lu Zhang, Rui Yan, and Zhi Jin. 2016. Natural language inference by tree-based convolution and heuristic matching. In ACL, page 130

2016
[29]

Ray Oshikawa, Jing Qian, and William Yang Wang. 2018. A survey on natural language processing for fake news detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.00770

2018 arXiv
[30]

Kashyap Popat, Subhabrata Mukherjee, Andrew Yates, and Gerhard Weikum. 2018. Declare: Debunking fake news and false claims using evidence-aware deep learning. In EMNLP, pages 22--32

2018
[31]

Martin Potthast, Johannes Kiesel, Kevin Reinartz, Janek Bevendorff, and Benno Stein. 2017. A stylometric inquiry into hyperpartisan and fake news. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.05638

2017 arXiv
[32]

Feng Qian, Chengyue Gong, Karishma Sharma, and Yan Liu. 2018. Neural user response generator: Fake news detection with collective user intelligence. In IJCAI, pages 3834--3840

2018
[33]

Natali Ruchansky, Sungyong Seo, and Yan Liu. 2017. Csi: A hybrid deep model for fake news detection. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 797--806. ACM

2017
[34]

Rupesh Kumar Srivastava, Klaus Greff, and J \"u rgen Schmidhuber. 2015. Highway networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.00387

2015 arXiv
[35]

James Thorne, Mingjie Chen, Giorgos Myrianthous, Jiashu Pu, Xiaoxuan Wang, and Andreas Vlachos. 2017. Fake news stance detection using stacked ensemble of classifiers. In Proceedings of the 2017 EMNLP Workshop: Natural Language Processing meets Journalism, pages 80--83

2017
[36]

Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in neural information processing systems, pages 5998--6008

2017
[37]

liar, liar pants on fire

William Yang Wang. 2017. " liar, liar pants on fire": A new benchmark dataset for fake news detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.00648

2017 arXiv
[38]

Yilin Wang, Suhang Wang, Jiliang Tang, Huan Liu, and Baoxin Li. 2015. Unsupervised sentiment analysis for social media images. In Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence

2015
[39]

Lianwei Wu, Yuan Rao, Hualei Yu, Yiming Wang, and Nazir Ambreen. 2019. A multi-semantics classification method based on deep learning for incredible messages on social media. Chinese Journal of Electronics, 28(4):754--763

2019
[40]

Lianwei Wu, Yuan Rao, Hualei Yu, Yiming Wang, and Ambreen Nazir. 2018. False information detection on social media via a hybrid deep model. In International Conference on Social Informatics, pages 323--333. Springer

2018
[41]

Fan Yang, Yang Liu, Xiaohui Yu, and Min Yang. 2012. Automatic detection of rumor on sina weibo. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Mining Data Semantics, page 13. ACM

2012
[42]

Qiang Zhang, Aldo Lipani, Shangsong Liang, and Emine Yilmaz. 2019. Reply-aided detection of misinformation via bayesian deep learning. In Companion Proceedings of The Web Conference

2019
[43]

Arkaitz Zubiaga, Elena Kochkina, Maria Liakata, Rob Procter, and Michal Lukasik. 2016 a . Stance classification in rumours as a sequential task exploiting the tree structure of social media conversations. In Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Comp...

2016
[44]

Arkaitz Zubiaga, Maria Liakata, Rob Procter, Geraldine Wong Sak Hoi, and Peter Tolmie. 2016 b . Analysing how people orient to and spread rumours in social media by looking at conversational threads. PloS one, 11(3):e0150989

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

URL: " 'urlintro :=

ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRINGS urlintro eprinturl eprintpr...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

[3] [3]

Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow. 2017. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of economic perspectives, 31(2):211--36

work page 2017

[4] [4]

Carlos Castillo, Marcelo Mendoza, and Barbara Poblete. 2011. Information credibility on twitter. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web, pages 675--684. ACM

work page 2011

[5] [5]

Xilun Chen, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Hany Hassan, Wei Wang, and Claire Cardie. 2018. Zero-resource multilingual model transfer: Learning what to share. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.03552

arXiv 2018

[6] [6]

Xilun Chen and Claire Cardie. 2018. Multinomial adversarial networks for multi-domain text classification. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1226--1240

work page 2018

[7] [7]

Yi-Chin Chen, Zhao-Yang Liu, and Hung-Yu Kao. 2017. Ikm at semeval-2017 task 8: Convolutional neural networks for stance detection and rumor verification. In SemEval-2017, pages 465--469

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Junyoung Chung, Caglar Gulcehre, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling. In NIPS 2014 Workshop on Deep Learning, December 2014

2014